Ford was an accidental president, Nixon’s hand-picked successor, a man of much political experience who had never run on a national ticket. He was as open and straight-forward as Nixon was tightly controlled and conspiratorial.

He took office minutes after Nixon flew off into exile and declared “our long national nightmare is over.” But he revived the debate a month later by granting Nixon a pardon for all crimes he committed as president. That single act, it was widely believed, cost Ford election to a term of his own in 1976, but it won praise in later years as a courageous act that allowed the nation to move on.

A courageous act? I don't think so.

You decide. Here's a Time Magazine article from August, 1974. Here is a 1993 interview with President Ford, with quotes from Donald Rumsfeld, who was one of his Chiefs of Staff.

That alone should condmen him to infamy. The pardon set the bad example followed with Iran Contra. I recall Ford as being a failed and inompetent President, even if he were otherwise a "nice man". On the other hand, Ford also tried, at Tricky Dick's behast, to impeach William O. Douglas for his liberal liberal liberal opinions, particurarly Douglas's first amendment opinions.

The Constitution's Impeachment Clause applies to all "civil officers of the United States" - not to mention the president, vice president and federal judges. It is not clear who, precisely, is among those considered "civil officers," but the group certainly includes a president's cabinet and sub-cabinet, as well as the senior department officials and the White House staff (those who are issued commissions by the president and serve the President and Vice President).
...
Lowering the aim of an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney. It would not be an effort to overturn the 2004 election, but rather to rid the government of those who have participated, along with Bush and Cheney, in abuses and misuses of power; indeed, many among them have actually encouraged Bush and Cheney to undertake the offensive activities.

Many of these men (and a few women) are young enough that it is very likely that they will return to other posts in future Republican Administrations, and based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.

In a now-famous speech on the House floor, Ford told his colleagues that "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers (it) to be at a given moment in history."

that I haven't seen this idea Dean's suggested from anyone else anywhere. And the more I re-read his article the more sense it makes...

The whole point of the process and the desire for impeachment is to achieve this result:

based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.

He has poisoned our water forever. [Bush] will be remembered as a classic case of a smart man shi*ting in his own nest. But he also shi* in our nests, and that was the crime that history will burn on his memory like a brand. By disgracing and degrading the Presidency of the United States, by [fleecing] the White House like a diseased cur, [Bush] broke the heart of the American Dream.

TL discusses crime and punishment quite frequently. We got used to a simplistic criminal system in which one goes on trial and possible jail time when a crime is committed. Nixon was punished plenty; there wasn't and isn't a need to send his case through courts. Nixon's legacy is shot; his positive contributions (China, EPA, etc.) are downplayed; he lost the presidency.

Ford "brought" us Carter, a failed and incompetent president who is spending the rest of his life arrogantly and clumsily trying to restore his honor on the world's back. Carter ushered in a long succession of terrible Democratic candidates for presidency: Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. As such an honorable and humble Ford has made Reagan and W possible.

"Nixon was punished plenty; there wasn't and isn't a need to send his case through courts."

I've often heard this argument stated by Nixon's defenders, but when I've had the opportunity to ask about it in a discussion, I've never gotten an answer. So, would you be willing to answer a couple of questions?

When we talk about someone being punished in the context of the legal system and courts, we almost always have in mind a formulation like this: "Bob did XYZ (the offense), and Bob was punished by ZYX (the sentence)." There's some effort made to make the offense and the punishment commensurate with each other.

So my questions are: What do you claim Nixon's specific offense or offenses to have been? And how, specifically, was he punished? Why do you say his punishment was "plenty" in proportion to the seriousness of what he did?

I don't have much hope that you'll respond; as I said, no one I've asked this sort of thing of ever has. But maybe you will.

"Nixon was punished plenty" means that he never had to face an indictment or make an answer to charges. He never had to testify or respond to cross-examination under oath.

And it means that he was never convicted or sentenced; Ford pardoned him before any of these things could become possible.

It means that he was allowed to keep control of the White House tapes and documents that showed what he had done, denying the public access for years and years.

It means that he never had to keep his promise to repay the US for the improvements he had made to his private residences during his Presidency.

It means that he was given only $200,000 for his transition expenses by the Congress, instead of the $850,000 Ford requested for him. And the $100,000 slated for "miscellaneous" expenses was cut.

Poor fellow. At least he wasn't stripped of his pension ... or the taxpayer subsidies for his office space, staff salaries, office supplies, and telephone service ... or his lifetime medical benefits and Secret Service security staff.

When all was said and done, exactly what crimes would Nixon have been convicted of and how much jail time would he have gotten as a first offender?

No one at the time sought to impeach Nixon for being a "mass murderer" or guilty of "treason". No one stated that Ford was giving Nixon a pardon for genocide.

Ford's pardon brought him no political gain, only grief. He got no money for it (unlike Clinton and Marc Rich). He did what he thought was right even though he caught heck for it, which is a good definition of courage. If the consensus of historians now states that it was a bad judgment, then that would be a fair attack on Ford. But is possible to be both courageous and wrong. And maybe Ford was both courageous and right.

Obstruction of justice for another. I know there has been an attempt to whitewash RMN, but lets remember him accurately. See Article 1 of the Articles of Impeachment. Recognize any indictable offenses?

Nixon also ordered the burglary of Daniel Ellsburg's psychiatrist. Arguably he could have been indicted for that as well.

wiretaps of reporters and government employees to discover the source of the news leaks about the bombing.

A team of burglars from the "Plumbers" then broke into a psychiatrist's office looking for damaging information on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press.

In 1972, as part of Nixon's re-election effort, a massive campaign of political spying and 'dirty tricks' was initiated against Democrats, leading to the Watergate break-in to plant bugs (tiny audio transmitters) inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee.

Presidential Counsel John Dean testified there was an ongoing White House coverup and that Nixon had been personally involved in the payment of hush money to the five burglars and two other operatives involved in planning the Watergate break-in.

regarding impeachment:

The House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 on July 27, 1974 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the President: obstruction of justice. The second (abuse of power) and third (contempt of Congress)
[...]
In August, the previously unknown tape from June 23, 1972 was released. Recorded only a few days after the break-in, it documented Nixon and Haldeman formulating a plan to block investigations by having the CIA falsely claim to the FBI that national security was involved. The tape was referred to as a "smoking gun". With this last piece of evidence, Nixon's few remaining supporters deserted him. The ten congressmen who had voted against all three Articles of Impeachment in committee announced that they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House. Throughout this time, Nixon still denied any involvement in the ordeal.

Nixon's support in the Senate was weak as well. After being told by key Republican Senators that enough votes existed to convict him, Nixon decided to resign.

was a failure to own up to what had happened. Others have done the same. All would have been better off had they admitted what had happened and apologized.

It is has never been proven that Nixon ordered the break-in or had prior knowledge. His resignation was the right thing for him to do.

As for Ford, I think he should be the President who made Chevy Chase popular. Worse can, and has been, said about dead Presidents.

Did his pardoning of Nixon elect Carter? I don't know. Certainly the country was disgusted, I know I was, and I voted for Jimmy Carter, who claimed to be brilliant and to have only lusted in his heart.

I learned to believe the "in the heart" claim. Carter made the "brilliant" claim obviously wrong.
For me personally, he was the last Deomcrat I would vote for, although I did chose The Little Admiral in '92. Another mistake....

RMN set up the plumbers to do covert operations for his own purposes. Do you really think RMN didn't know the types of activities they were going to engage in?

Even if RMN did not know prior to either the Ellsberg burglary or the Watergate burglary, he certainly participated in the coverup and obstructed justice.

And of course it wasn't ever proven, Ford made sure that it wouldn't ever be proven when he pardened RMN and Nixon avoided trial.

No one has argued RMN shouldn't have resigned. That in and of itself doesn't obviate the need for a public trial, if we are going to live by the ideal that no man is above the law.

Reagan "Hooverized" Carter and the popular misconception will forever be that Carter's presidency was an utter failure. The truth is a little more complicated than that. (Hoover's great crises was the Great Depression. It consumed his presidency and he failed to deal with the Great Depression. He deserves the popular judgment of failure).

The Iranian Hostage crises occured in Carter's last year. He got them home alive. Not, perhaps, in a manner you wanted. The double digit inflation was a result of RMN and Ford's policies and Carter, not Reagan, appointed Volker to the Fed (replacing Andrea Mitchell's husband). Volker's leadership of the Fed, for better or worse ended that crises. Carter's deficit was less than Reagan or either Bush. Job creation was higher under Carter. Energy policy? Better than any Republican who followed him. Then there was Camp David Peace Accords (between Egypt and Isreal) which have lasted to this day. The Carter presidency is a mixed bag to be sure, but he wasn't the disaster the popular press and the GOP makes him.

Having voted for and living through Carter's term as a fully functioning adult with the responsibilities thereof...

Home mortage interest rates went from the 5's to the 12's and the economy went south as inflation continued. He could have helped the individual by cutting taxes but he didn't really care.

And if you consider gas shortages a good energy policy I guess you would swoon if the government siezed everyone's car..... except your car. I am sure it would be neccessary for you to have one.

The hostage crisis started when Carter withdrew support from the Shah. That happened in the '78 time frame and the Shaw left Iran in Jaunary '79.
Khomeoni returned from exile in France 2/1/79. All of this was months before the hostage taking and not in the last days of his term.

The root cause of this, of course, was his foreign policy and is inability to understand Radical Islamism. A problem he continues to demonstrate to this very minute.

Indeed, all of our current ME problems can be traced to Carter's policies and, it appears now, his beliefs.

And he may have tried, but there is no doubt it was the prospect of Reagan in office that finally brought them to return the hostages. Cowboys do have a "do right or get out of town" image.

As for various claims against Nixon, you admit that no one knows... Speculation is the fuel of the Internet..

To get back on track, no this thread is not about Carter, historian Juan Cole posts a nice (longish) recap of the Ford years with flashbacks to then current news reports. A sample:

....Although it is often pointed out that many officials in the George W. Bush administration got their start under Ford, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and (in a supporting role) Paul Wolfowitz, in fact these individuals went on to convert to Reaganism and to abandon the moderate Republican principles of Ford....

....[Ford] was against just assassinating people, and insisted on warrants for the wiretapping of US citizens.

All presidents make errors, and some abuses occurred on Ford's watch, though they often were initiated by Kissinger. But Ford faced with no illusions the challenges of his era, of detente with the Soviet Union, continued attempts to cultivate China, the collapse of Indochina, the fall-out of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, and the beginnings of the Lebanese Civil War. Ford was right about detente, right about China, right about Arab-Israeli peace, right about avoiding a big entanglement in Angola, right to worry about nuclear proliferation (one of his worries was the increasing evidence that the Middle East had a nuclear power, Israel, and India was moving in that direction).

Ford's challengers on the Reagan Right were wrong about everything.....

many officials in the George W. Bush administration got their start under Ford, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and (in a supporting role) Paul Wolfowitz, in fact these individuals went on to convert to Reaganism and to abandon the moderate Republican principles of Ford....

Guess that this is difficult for you. I will paraphrase:

Ford cannot be blamed for the criminals in todays administration. They started out with Ford as moderate conservatives but they became rabid right wing radicals under Reagan.

Admit what? I think I pointed out the crimes of RMN sufficiently. to repeat since you missed it: Conspiracy and obstruction of Jusrice. Watch the company (RMN) you keep, Jim. You know what your momma said about lying down in the mud with the pigs...

As for the Shah, what would you or your buddy, RMN have done (you'll get extra points if you talk about the Eisenhower Administration and Mossadegh)?

Our ME problems can be traced back to the fact that our god given oil is under their sand.... It goes back a lot further than JC. (See the aforementioned Mossadegh for one example).

If you are going to discuss Carter and the economy, you will have to discuss the economy he inherited from Ford and Nixon. How exactly did Carter or his polices create high interest rates? How did Reagan solve high interest rates (again extra credit if you can work Paul Volker into it. Just be sure to get who appointed Paul Volker correct).

Carter didn't create the oil crises or the long gas lines. That was the effect of an oil cartel. He was one of the first to have to deal with it (your buddy RMN, favored price controls as I recall. How do you suppose that would affect shortages and long lines?). Carter promoted energy conservation and tried to get an alternative fuel program off the ground. A program that was shelved by St. Ronnie.

Reagan, Cap Weinberger, and GHWB may have prolonged the hostage crises to their own ends.

Not sure where you get the government confiscating cars nonsense. Did a hookah smoking catapillar give you a call this morning?

YOU brought up Carter and the fuel shortage. What was your point in doing that? That the first one happened under Nixon, well, let's not (sob) judge him as you pleaded.

The privilege was so that hospital workers would be able to get to the hospitals, so that people wouldn't die, (like you deem it so essential that we have a national database, so Dad won't die from a drug reaction). The hospital sent the cops to get me after a storm once (maybe they should have sent a trolley car!)

If you are going to discuss Carter and the economy, you will have to discuss the economy he inherited from Ford and Nixon.

Can we do the same for W and Reagan??

(me)

As for various claims against Nixon, you admit that no one knows... Speculation is the fuel of the Internet..

(Molly)

Admit what?

(Molly)

Even if RMN did not know prior to either the Ellsberg burglary or the Watergate burglary, he certainly participated in the coverup and obstructed justice.

And of course it wasn't ever proven

Hope the above clears that up.

What ever was done prior, Carter was President. Carter could have supported the Shah and worked towards reform and a better, stable, pro USA government. He didn't and we live with his ignorance to this very second.

And I didn't say that Nixon did good about the oil crisis, I said that Carter screwed the pooch...

Reagan, Cap Weinberger, and GHWB may have prolonged the hostage crises to their own ends.

"may have" There you go again.

BTW - My momma didn't know about such things as pigs and mud so I'll take your word for it.

BTW - My momma didn't know about such things as pigs and mud so I'll take your word for it

And you call yourself a Southern boy. Dilettante!

Lets run down the sequence of events. Diogenes

exactly what crimes would Nixon have been convicted of

I responded
Conspiracy and Obstruction of justice and possibly ordering the burglary of Daniel Ellsberg's shrink.

Jimbo said in addressing me specifically

It is has never been proven that Nixon ordered the break-in or had prior knowledge.

I responded

Even if RMN did not know prior to either the Ellsberg burglary or the Watergate burglary, he certainly participated in the coverup and obstructed justice.

The use of the qualifer even i f= argument's sake...

I fail to see where I have to admit anything except that you quote me out of context and then claim victory. Kind of like that Senator from Maine's advice to LBJ in Vietnam. Declare victory and get out.

Overall I am going to have to flunk on this history test because you failed to address Paul Volker, Mossadegh or how our god given oil got under their sand in your response. In particular I was looking forward to your response on how you or Tricky Dick would have handled the Shah. What I got from you was "support the Shah". Without saying specifically how. All this statement is, is a vague aspiration. A vague aspiration is not a plan.

I quoted you about 6 inches from where the words were visibe. In this thread. That obviously shows that I had no attempt to score points using the old out of context trick.

I think I was spot on. Your RMN comments have a high degree of "coulda and shoulda" in them.

As for LBJ and the infamous Senator, they were both wrong. LBJ for getting in and then not trying to win. The Senator for giving terrible advice.

As for the background on Iran... so what? The facts are that Carter had no way of correcting any of your supposed, or even real, sins of the past. He did have the opportunity to support a friendly government and work for improvements.

Instead he removed support and we now have the result.

If you want details on what I would have done, ask for them on an open thread. We are pushing TL's limit as it is.... being mostly off subject..
Gosh, I hate to agree with sailor.

And I didn't realize I was being tested. Do I have the same right??? Oh well...

After leaving the US Treasury, he became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1975 to 1979, leaving to take up the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve in August 1979.

Having let the economy tank and inflation get out of hand, His Goodness opted for the nuclear option.

BTW - Like most Jacksonians I favor loose money. Most poor and middle class people don't mind a small amount of inflation to spur the economy and reduce the cost of paying back loans.

Since you wish to stick to Tricky Dick, you do realize that what set the pardon annoucement in motion was that Jawarski let Ford know that if Ford did not pardon Dick, then Leon would indictment and try him on the conspiracy charges. In other words Jawarski thought he had sufficient evidence to indict Dick. Also as the tapes have come out, it has become clearer that Nixon did conspire to obstruct justice. Here is the smoking gun tape, Friday June 23, 1972, Haldeman discusing covering up Watergate with Dick.

HALDEMAN: okay -that's fine. Now, on the investigation, you know, the Democratic break-in thing, we're back to the-in the, the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because Gray doesn't exactly know how to control them, and they have, their investigation is now leading into some productive areas, because they've been able to trace the money, not through the money itself, but through the bank, you know, sources - the banker himself. And, and it goes in some directions we don't want it to go.

HALDEMAN: That the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters call Pat Gray and just say, "Stay the hell out of this...this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it." That's not an unusual development...

PRESIDENT NIXON: When you get in these people when you...get these people in, say: "Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that" ah, without going into the details... don't, don't lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, "the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don't go any further into this case", period!

I seem to remember agreeing that he obstructed justice, even noted I didn't like him..

I just don't see the proof for all your claims.

I mean, why argue the point? That's why the Left is just the flip of the Right. Neither can stand to let anyone be in the middle and won't accept agreement on broad principles, but demands that all must sing the same song.

Haldeman discussed with Nixon how to get the FBI to back off, including inventing a tale that the FBI would reopen the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Even lay people should recognize they are discussing interrupting a law enforcement investigation to prevent it from discovering wrong doing- this is called obstruction.

What are they disscussing obsructing? Justice.

There are two people (HR "Bob" Halderman and Milhous) having this discussion. There is a term for this. Starts with a C.

Now lets connect the dots. Diogenes asked what RMN could the be convicted of. I pointed out it was Jaworski's private communication to Ford that unless Ford pardoned RMN, Jaworski would seek an indictment; that obviously Jaworski felt he had grounds to make a prima facia case.

...and expected, too. Nixon knew what he needed in a successor, and that was someone willing to let him off the hook for "the greater good." Since Ford had always been willing to do Nixon's bidding before, he was the perfect choice to replace Agnew.

By covering up for the crimes of Nixon Mr. Ford became a multi - millionaire, and the country has suffered through the a series of second - raters as President. This current President is not even second - rate, but he is a war criminal.

in pardoning Nixon was that it probably cost him the election to Jimmy Carter. Four years of a dreadful economy (misery index anyone?), loss of national pride (a national malaise anyone?), The Iranian Hostage crisis which we are still dealing with today - not too mention the tragic rescue effort, an energy crisis that was truly harmful (gas lines, no gas for days, odd/even days - turn your thermostat down as a national energy plan) higher prices in real terms than today. Yes, Carter did some good things too, but I would have gladly sacrificed Nixon to avoid Carter.

Ford decided to make the presidentcy a path to the boardrooms and big payoffs. This led to addled rons $1million payoff by the Japanese for 1 speech after he slithered oout of office and poppa's repeated reimbursements by the moonies after he was evicted.
As for Carter he was a better president then any rethuglican since Eisenhower.
He did his job he tried to clean up the meeses left by his reactionary predessors, he had a forward looking foriegn policy, he saw the energy crisis's coming and tried for long term solutions rather then the rethuglican's short term patches.

profanity? sorry. I am an american and expect to use the 1st amendment when possible. I defamed no one except by comparison to another object.
I perhaps am older than you, and was there every day of the watergate hearings watching my nation turned into the criminal enterprise it is today. To have someone amend my comment about that defining event that has caused us, directly and succinctly, to have our government run by criminals and for criminals, is my opinion. Whether you agree or disagree, the glossing over of the life and times of the ford is a crime we can prevent for future generations. We really must allow the truth to be told.
I am deeply disturbed Jeralyn, that you may not practice what you preach. Since I do not have the print that I created, I can't really comment on what I said. But since I do not gore anyone with profanity, and almost exclusively via comparison, I will await a copy of it to me on email, and will apologize if it is in fact offensive, to you and to all. But if it is not, and you have censored a comment by someone that has seen good people die as a result of this crime, I must reluctantly say, goodbye. I was always under the impression that this sight was proactively proud of the right of free speech.

for using the F word. Read our comment policy. No profanity. It's not because it offends my sensibilities, it's because law firms and other businesses use censor software that blocks sites that use profanity. As I've said many times, since it happened once in 2002, it's a nightmare to track down the company doing the censoring to get reinstated.

I'm not willing to have the site be unaccessible to thousands of readers so that you can express yourself with profanity. All you had to do was use an asterisk for one of the letters.

I don't keep copies of deleted comments. Since the move to Scoop, I cannot edit comments, only delete them. That's what happened to your comment.

You are welcome to post here, but you must follow the commenting rules.

Then alas, free speech is dead. the saxon fricative is very obscene to an 80 year old, but I have heard it said on the teevee by an awful lot of people. it is considerably worse when you see it visited upon the unwilling in the form of institutionalized rape.

have you been threatened by some government agency for content on your site? are you just one of the first sites to implement such a policy due to impending legal action?

a crime is not diminished by using a word. words do not harm. preventing the use of words however, does. It is called fascism, communism, despotism, and it has many other names. you show your willing support it seems, and it is the first step on the road to slavery. I am nearly speechless to think that an attorney in favor of the rights of some scum and some heroes, would apply censorship by opinion. I would guess you were quite young then perhaps, and it has no meaning to you from actual experience. Perhaps you don't understand how angry we are that this man ford caused what we have today to become a reality. no one is more responsible than he, unless you add his advisors. But it was he that pulled the trigger that killed the US.

goodbye, it was a pleasure for a time. but when you start censoring statements about a criminal public figure, your next step is to implement religion or public opinion as a basis for future comments. I can see you personally don't appreciate it's use, so you have set a moral policy upon we who visit your site. your right, I do not object. it is morally reprehensible thing to do for someone that aspires to the lofty goal your site claims. It lessens this site to one of mediocrity, and I will never aspire to that.